Christopher Henry v. Gene Johnson, No. 08-7245 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7245 CHRISTOPHER S. HENRY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Mr., Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:07-cv-00583-MHL) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 1, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher S. Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher S. Henry seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s order petition. or judge denying relief issues absent constitutional prisoner a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) a substantial right. jurists of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable his The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue on 28 this would showing U.S.C. the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that of (2000). demonstrating any assessment of a A that the constitutional claims by the magistrate judge is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural magistrate judge is likewise debatable. ruling by the Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record Henry has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and conclude that Accordingly, we deny dismiss because and the the appeal. facts and We legal This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.